Hildebrandt v Papakonstantinou [2024] NSWSC 1181

Hildebrandt v Papakonstantinou [2024] NSWSC 1181

There has been no unconscionable resiling from the representations or promises made by the parents. The evidence established the plaintiff's expectation was always to inherit the southern part of the property under the wills of her parents, not to receive an immediate transfer. Markela's will provides for Gina's expectation as promised, with an explicit undertaking not to alter it. Absent unconscionable departure from the induced expectation, proprietary estoppel does not arise. The family provision claim failed as Gina did not discharge the onus to show inadequate provision, having regard to substantial prior provision and the inheritance still available under Markela's will.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Georgina Hildebrandt; Second Plaintiff: Kit Hildebrandt; First Defendant: The Estate of Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou, formerly Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou (between 3 April and 14 June 2023); Second Defendant: Markela Papakonstantinou; Third Defendant: Arthur Papakonstantinou
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings (real Property List) / Principal Judgment, Final Determination
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Estoppel, Family Provision, Constructive Trust, Unconscionable Conduct
Equity Succession Proprietary Estoppel Family Provision Constructive Trust Unconscionable Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Georgina Hildebrandt

First Plaintiff

Kit Hildebrandt

Second Plaintiff

The Estate of Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou, formerly Hrisoulis Papakonstantinou (between 3 April and 14 June 2023)

First Defendant

Markela Papakonstantinou

Second Defendant

Arthur Papakonstantinou

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings (real Property List) / Principal Judgment, Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proprietary estoppel arises based on promises by parents regarding rural property; whether parents resiled from representations resulting in detriment to plaintiff; whether family provision order should be made under Succession Act 2006 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no unconscionable resiling from the representations or promises made by the parents. The evidence established the plaintiff's expectation was always to inherit the southern part of the property under the wills of her parents, not to receive an immediate transfer. Markela's will provides for Gina's expectation as promised, with an explicit undertaking not to alter it. Absent unconscionable departure from the induced expectation, proprietary estoppel does not arise. The family provision claim failed as Gina did not discharge the onus to show inadequate provision, having regard to substantial prior provision and the inheritance still available under Markela's will.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed
  • Notations made recording undertakings given by second defendant (not to revoke/amend her will or enforce 2009 Deed of Family Arrangement) and by third defendant (not to enforce 2009 Deed)